I can play devil's advocate, although I don't agree with this argument. Someone visiting Texas is here only for a very short time. They will have no training/education on Texas law, but their short stay minimized any risk. Not so with Texas residents.bizarrenormality wrote:Can someone give me one logical reason to allow someone from California to carry in Texas with a California license, and not allow Texans to carry in Texas with or without a license?
You're right, the fingerprint requirement is in the Government Code so DPS can't waive the fingerprint requirement. That will take a legislative change.TexasCajun wrote:And I don't see the DPS only waiving the fingerprints.
The cost isn't going to be lowered, it won't pass. The actual cost overall isn't bad in view of the many thousands of people who get the 50% reduction. While the initial fee is $140, that's only $28/year and renewals are $70 or $14/year. If you get the discount, then you can cut those numbers to $14 and $7. Those are the arguments we face and you really can't get people excited about saving Texans from $7 to $28 a year.Stripes Dude wrote:...cost too. Easy process for other states, quicker turnaround, and costs less in other states.Charles L. Cotton wrote:
The best approach is to remove the incentives to get out of state licenses like reducing the time required for the initial CHL and removing successfully completed deferred adjudications from the definition of "conviction."
Chas.
Correct. He filed it in 2011 and I'm thrilled that he's the sponsor again. Most folks don't want to sign onto a bill sponsored by an F-rated Rep. That's no guarantee it won't pass, but it helps.The Annoyed Man wrote:Isn't this his second attempt to introduce this bill? I seem to remember him doing it last session in response to all those people pushing the Utah CFP as a way to get around the Texas requirements. And also, didn't Utah pass a new law back then preventing the issuance of a non-resident CFP to anyone who does not first have a carry license from their state of residency? I recall Utah being legitimately worried about loss of reciprocity with other states because of non-residents who were using the CFP to get around their own states' requirements.Charles L. Cotton wrote:I don't like this bill and I don't want it to pass. The fact that Lon Burnam is rated F is the best thing we have going for us. That said, requiring Texans to have a Texas CHL will not impact reciprocity. In fact, a few states have already passed such legislation and more are going to do so as time goes on. We can thank those like the online Virginia instructor/class for this bill being filed again.
The best approach is to remove the incentives to get out of state licenses like reducing the time required for the initial CHL and removing successfully completed deferred adjudications from the definition of "conviction."
Chas.
It would be optional, but I see no justification for this bill. I would unnecessarily increase DPS' workload for no benefit.DevilDawg wrote:So long as this is OPTIONAL and only per the discretion of the veteran. To be otherwise woul be an attempt to strip our vets by doctor.Charles L. Cotton wrote:SB164 (Van de Putte): Providing option to have "Veteran" printed on CHL.